NationStates Jolt Archive

1. One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines. To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist. If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

2. A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

3. The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

4. An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out. The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out? If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?


So, what are your answers to the above 4 scenerios and why? Does the reason have to do with cupcakes?


Disclaimer: All thought experiments were stolen off this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4954856.stm?oldness).

1) No
2) Yes
3) No
4) yes, and they should do the same.

Why, basic ethics.

1) Yes. That's a Kind Act.

2) Yes (Common Good Principle)

3) Yes (See Above)

4) Yes and Yes.

1. One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines. To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist. If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

2. A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

3. The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

4. An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out. The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out? If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?


So, what are your answers to the above 4 scenerios and why? Does the reason have to do with cupcakes?


Disclaimer: All thought experiments were stolen off this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4954856.stm?oldness).

1. No
2. Yes
3. No
4. Yes

Why, simple. 1, 2 and 3- free will and ethics. 4, survival of the fittest.

No because i was taken against my will to be strapped up to this guy i know nothing about.

Yes i would flip the switch, but there's practical difficulties with this one, as how do you know in the heat of the moment which way the lines will move when you flick the switch?


No because that would involve murdering a man to save others.


Yes i would advise my fellows to do the same, what i'm wondering here is why the hell you have a stick of dynamite in your pack you nutter!

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No, and I would have them kill me

Are questions two and three not the same thing?

1) Yes. That's a Kind Act.

Just because an action is kind doesn't mean it should be obligatory.

1. One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines. To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist. If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

1. No, but I can't really let another person die if it's preventable.


2. A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

Yes

3. The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

Yes, if I had his permission.

4. An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out. The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out? If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?

Yes, and blow me out, hehe, I wouldn't mind a female companions to blow me out.....hehe

Just because an action is kind doesn't mean it should be obligatory.

You'd sacrifice a Person for your convenience?

Are questions two and three not the same thing?

There's a subtle distinction: in the first one, the death of the man on the track is just an unhappy consequence of a virtuous action (saving five people); in the second, the man's death is an integral part of your action and you're using him as a means to saving the five people's lives.

Are questions two and three not the same thing?

Not quite.
2 involves flicking a switch to save more or less people (yet practical considerations i think in this are a bit too high).
3 involves sacrificing someone else for the greater good, asking whether you should push another man in to die or not.

But it's debatable, i imagine this is why these dilemmas are put up.

You'd sacrifice a Person for your convenience?

You think being hospitalised against your will for nine months is an 'inconvenience'? Besides, what I personally would do is irrelevant: the point is that anyone in that situation would have a right to be unplugged.

1. One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines. To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist. If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

Uh, no. Not just no, but hell no. They kidnapped you when they should have asked and also offered compensation. Unless you're going to be somehow compensated for your time and organ usage (I'm guessing kidneys/liver are what's needed -- notice how these "problems" are short on logic), the maestro can meet his maker, just like the rest of us will. If the (apparently ethically bankrupt and absent of foresight) Music Appreciation Society didn't get recordings of the maestro, that's their fault, and I shouldn't be made to pay for that mistake against my will.

2. A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

This question does not deserve an answer. If the people in danger are not just deaf, but completely insensate and stupid enough to be working in a situation where tons of metal regularly pass across clearly delineated routes, who's to say that doing anything would really help? This isn't a dilemma, it's a half-baked game of "gotcha". Screw that.

3. The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

Worse than the previous question, this one asks you to believe that your weight won't stop a trolley, but somehow, someone who could be at most, 500lbs and manage to be ambulatory enough to make it to a bridge, is somehow heavy enough to stop tons of steel with the attendant momentum. Never mind the fact that the bridge, if it's like any I've EVER seen, has fences up to a height of at least eight feet. Find the author of the site who posted these and kick him in the nuts.

4. An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out. The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out? If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?

Again, poorly thought out and more poorly written. First it's a cave, but suddenly there's tides involved? You need to mention that shit in the first sentence. It's called "the setting" and it gets annoying when critical details are left to "gotcha" in the middle. Who decided to let Big Jack out first anyway? That wasn't terribly smart. And cannot be moved? THERE ARE FOUR OTHER PEOPLE THERE! Unless this is some kind of Feeble Scouts Dynamite Jamboree outing ('cause we all carry TNT with us when we hike, it's on the standard list right after water, a compass and bug spray), this whole premise is utterly karked.


So, what are your answers to the above 4 scenerios and why? Does the reason have to do with cupcakes?


Disclaimer: All thought experiments were stolen off this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4954856.stm?oldness).

Seriously, write in to the BBC and tell them they ought to be pimp-slapped for foisting this implausible crap onto people. There are plenty of genuine moral dilemmas in the world, and even more that could be invented without being remotely as slipshod as these four anti-posers.

1. One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines. To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist. If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

Yes, all though I could understand why one would say no, as they did kidnap you.

2. A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

No, because then you are responsible for that one death, where as the idiot with the trolly is responsible for the 5.

3. The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?


No, Im not a murderer.

4. An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out. The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out? If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?

What idiot let the fat guy go first?!? Cupcakes.

1. One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines. To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist. If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

Of course not: the right to control over one's own body is the most fundamental of all rights, and to say yes would only encourage more kidnappings in future.

2. A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

Yep.

3. The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

Yes. This thought experiment has been around for so many years that any extremely fat men stupid enough to carry on walking over railway bridges deserve to die.

4. An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out. The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out? If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?

BOOM!!!

Seriously, write in to the BBC and tell them they ought to be pimp-slapped for foisting this implausible crap onto people. There are plenty of genuine moral dilemmas in the world, and even more that could be invented without being remotely as slipshod as these four anti-posers.

Heheh these are relativly well know ethical dilemeas that are supposed to highlight certian ways that ethical or moral decisions are made, and so have no bearing to reality nor logic in that sense.

Just see it as so, and breath......

Seriously, write in to the BBC and tell them they ought to be pimp-slapped for foisting this implausible crap onto people. There are plenty of genuine moral dilemmas in the world, and even more that could be invented without being remotely as slipshod as these four anti-posers.

The point of these thought experiments isn't necessarily to be realistic, it's to tease out the various issues which underlie real ethical dilemmas. For example, the two variations on the train track (the switch and the fat man) are meant to expose the different attitudes we have towards causing death as a side-effect to saving lives, and causing death as a means to saving lives.

Heheh these are relativly well know ethical dilemeas that are supposed to highlight certian ways that ethical or moral decisions are made, and so have no bearing to reality nor logic in that sense.

I wouldn't go that far: the trolley problem can easily be rephrased in terms of five terminally ill patients who could be saved if one healthy person was cut up and their organs redistributed. These problems do have practical applications, even if they're not always obvious. :):p

You think being hospitalised against your will for nine months is an 'inconvenience'? Besides, what I personally would do is irrelevant: the point is that anyone in that situation would have a right to be unplugged.

Yep. It isn't as If You're being shot in the face daily. Rights V. Duty. Duty should win.

I wouldn't go that far: the trolley problem can easily be rephrased in terms of five terminally ill patients who could be saved if one healthy person was cut up and their organs redistributed. These problems do have practical applications, even if they're not always obvious.

Huh wot you on about then? I mean what about my qouted post do you disagree with?

Yep. It isn't as If You're being shot in the face daily. Rights V. Duty. Duty should win.

I hope you plan on joining the bone marrow register, donating blood, joining the organ register, etc when you grow up. It would be at least one benefit from that kind of thinking

You'd sacrifice a Person for your convenience?

Convenience? I WAS KIDNAPPED. That IS illegal in the UK, isn't it? Again, these fuckers had to know the maestro was about to snuff it, and they took no measures to ensure wither his health or his documentation for posterity. NOT MY PROBLEM. I'm outta here without some serious compensation.

Heheh these are relativly well know ethical dilemeas that are supposed to highlight certian ways that ethical or moral decisions are made, and so have no bearing to reality nor logic in that sense.

Just see it as so, and breath......

The point of these thought experiments isn't necessarily to be realistic, it's to tease out the various issues which underlie real ethical dilemmas. For example, the two variations on the train track (the switch and the fat man) are meant to expose the different attitudes we have towards causing death as a side-effect to saving lives, and causing death as a means to saving lives.

I understand the purpose of thought experiments, but why not take the extra 30 seconds or so of thought it might take to make them at least reasonably plausible? I'm a lot more likely to put some genuine thought into a dilemma if it has a chance of actually happening. It's as if the questioners can't be bothered to put as much effort into the questions as they seem to be hoping for from the answers. I can't respect that kind of intellectual laziness.

No, because then you are responsible for that one death, where as the idiot with the trolly is responsible for the 5.
.

huh?
you won't flip the switch to save 5 people? due to who holds responsibility?
but you have the power to save 5, no one would say that you're responsible for killing that one man to save the 5 as you have little choice to save the greater number of people it's not as if you're the one driving the trolley.

Yep. It isn't as If You're being shot in the face daily. Rights V. Duty. Duty should win.

Are you seriously telling me that you think nine months confined to a hospital bed is an inconvenience? I don't know what you're smoking but I want some! Suppose if, after the nine months were over, another great musician was plugged into you. And then another. And then another. Are you seriously saying that somebody could be obliged to spend the rest of their life in hospital because a gang of criminals want you to?

You don't have any obligation to somebody purely because their minions kidnapped you; if rights are so easily overridden then they're utterly worthless.

I hope you plan on joining the bone marrow register, donating blood, joining the organ register, etc when you grow up. It would be at least one benefit from that kind of thinking

And blood plasma donor. And you can donate a kidney while still alive, presumably he's obliged to do that.

1) no 2)yes 3)no 4)yes

Huh wot you on about then? I mean what about my qouted post do you disagree with?

The bit about them having no relation to reality: the trolley problem is almost identical to the organ harvesting problem.

I understand the purpose of thought experiments, but why not take the extra 30 seconds or so of thought it might take to make them at least reasonably plausible? I'm a lot more likely to put some genuine thought into a dilemma if it has a chance of actually happening. It's as if the questioners can't be bothered to put as much effort into the questions as they seem to be hoping for from the answers. I can't respect that kind of intellectual laziness.

The point of thought experiments i think is that the principle is there to debate about.
If there was more effort put into them then the answers would be far simpler to find and end up with less debate about them.
Having said that i can understand why you'd be irritated by them, i've noticed some obvious flaws with them too or ways to make them better but hey, it's happened now.

The bit about them having no relation to reality: the trolley problem is almost identical to the organ harvesting problem.

Ahhh did you not see the words, ..'in that sense'?

I was addressing Intangelon's concerns about the reality of the situations, and basicly saying, chill man it is of no concern.

Ahhh did you not see the words, ..'in that sense'?

I was addressing Intangelon's concerns about the reality of the situations, and basicly saying, chill man it is of no concern.

What you expect me to actually read stuff before I reply to it?!?

*coughs*

Ok, I missed that bit of your post. Have a complimentary cookie (http://www.zuzzys.com/images/cookies.jpg). :)

Are you seriously telling me that you think nine months confined to a hospital bed is an inconvenience? I don't know what you're smoking but I want some! Suppose if, after the nine months were over, another great musician was plugged into you. And then another. And then another. Are you seriously saying that somebody could be obliged to spend the rest of their life in hospital because a gang of criminals want you to?

You don't have any obligation to somebody purely because their minions kidnapped you; if rights are so easily overridden then they're utterly worthless.

I don't smoke anything. I breathe in the Sweet British Air.

If I'm helping others I should be glad to If I has no effect on my own health.

Granted the Kidnap makes it bad, but it's for an honourable cause.

Rights must be maintained but One Should always do one's Duty.

I Would Donate my organs if there was a person in need (bar druggies, murderers etc. There's a point at which people are unworthy.)

1. One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines. To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist. If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

2. A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

3. The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

4. An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out. The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out? If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?


So, what are your answers to the above 4 scenerios and why? Does the reason have to do with cupcakes?


Disclaimer: All thought experiments were stolen off this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4954856.stm?oldness).

1. No
2. Yes, 5 lives > 1 life
3. No, it is his choice whether he jumps or not.
4. This is one of those things where I see it as I > everyone else which I know is not the real case. So I would do whatever saves my life.

I Would Donate my organs if there was a person in need (bar druggies, murderers etc. There's a point at which people are unworthy.)

Kidnappers are perfectly fine though I assume. You would donate to them?

SPOILER! The first one is supposed to be like pregnancy/abortion

I don't smoke anything. I breathe in the Sweet British Air.

If I'm helping others I should be glad to If I has no effect on my own health.

Granted the Kidnap makes it bad, but it's for an honourable cause.

Rights must be maintained but One Should always do one's Duty.

I Would Donate my organs if there was a person in need (bar druggies, murderers etc. There's a point at which people are unworthy.)

i have a few questions i'd like you to answer.

When you say drug addicts do you mean people who commit crime to stay on the drug, or people who take drugs in general or something else?

Would you count soldiers as murderers?

Do you donate blood? (personally i've done it twice but the needle was pretty sore the second time and i've been too busy to hand over my blood, but over the summer hmm maybe)

i have a few questions i'd like you to answer.

When you say drug addicts do you mean people who commit crime to stay on the drug, or people who take drugs in general or something else?

Would you count soldiers as murderers?

Do you donate blood? (personally i've done it twice but the needle was pretty sore the second time and i've been too busy to hand over my blood, but over the summer hmm maybe)

I wouldn't Donate to Kidnappers.

Drud addicts are people depndent upon an illegal substance. How they fund it doesn't matter.

Soldiers are not murderers on the Battlefield, They're defending their Homeland. If they then Come home and kill someone, then they're a Murderer.

I'm not old Enough to Donate Blood. I would though, just to see what type I am.

I wouldn't Donate to Kidnappers.



Yet you were, in this hypothetical, kidnapped and you feel you have a duty to stick around

Yet you were, in this hypothetical, kidnapped and you feel you have a duty to stick around

To help someone who wasn't a kidnapper. If He were a Kidnapper I'd go.

I don't smoke anything. I breathe in the Sweet British Air.

If I'm helping others I should be glad to If I has no effect on my own health.

Seriously, are you sure you're not smoking anything? Do you really think that being confined to a bed for nine months isn't going affect your health and fitness, even assuming you don't catch some kind of superbug or infection while you're in hospital? Do you know anyone who has to use a dialysis machine? Ask them how much their lives and health are affected by having to spend less than half their time plugged into the machine, and then imagine if that was your entire life 24/7.

If you really want to do it then that's up to you, but you have no right to force other people to do the same thing.

Granted the Kidnap makes it bad, but it's for an honourable cause.

The end does not justify the means and the law must not encourage kidnapping.

Rights must be maintained but One Should always do one's Duty.

I have no duty to anyone purely because they're minions have kidnapped me, and duty is a moral imperative rather than a legal one except in a few very rare circumstances (the duties of parents/guardians towards their children for example). It might be a moral duty to save lives by giving blood, but that doesn't make it legally mandatory: even a convicted murderer can't be forced to donate blood against their will, this is the whole point of having rights.

I Would Donate my organs if there was a person in need (bar druggies, murderers etc. There's a point at which people are unworthy.)

Are you a blood donor? Are you a marrow donor? Are you a blood plasma donor? Are you a platelet donor? If you can't even manage these 'minor' inconveniences then how can you expect somebody to put their entire life on hold to help a kidnapper?

Being a criminal means you have little rights. If you don't respect the rights of others why should you have those rights yourself?

1. One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines. To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist. If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?
Hmm...unlikely to suffer harm, and no one else can save him...well I'd be a little bit annoyed that they didn't ask first, and I'd ask for my computer and maybe some other stuff to entertain me, but yeah I'd have an obligation, as a decent human being, and as the person I am.

And even if I didn't I'd stay anyway.

2. A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?
Yes. It will save more lives that way. Of course I'd also try to save that one person, but that goes without saying.


3. The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?


Now there's a toughie. My personal beliefs dictate that forcing someone into dying for others is wrong; if they have to do it, it must be voluntary. On that same token my conscience wouldn't exactly like the idea of watching five people die.

I think under protest I would push him and then immediately admit what I did and apologize to his family, as well as serving whatever prison sentence I would likely serve from that act. I would also do whatever I could to make it up to his family.

4. An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out. The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out? If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?
I would ask Big Jack to look at the situation. Even if he survives the drowning, odds are he won't be able to get help in time to keep himself from dying of thirst and/or some other possible problem, not to mention the possible hypothermia from being stuck with a body under freezing water. In essence he'd be surviving the initial problem only to slowly suffer and die anyway.

With luck he'd listen to reason and then I'd blast him out. If not, I'd still blast him out because it'd be more merciful.

In his situation I'd be advising them to blast me.


So, what are your answers to the above 4 scenerios and why? Does the reason have to do with cupcakes?

No cupcakes.

I wouldn't Donate to Kidnappers.

Drud addicts are people depndent upon an illegal substance. How they fund it doesn't matter.

Soldiers are not murderers on the Battlefield, They're defending their Homeland. If they then Come home and kill someone, then they're a Murderer.

I'm not old Enough to Donate Blood. I would though, just to see what type I am.
(note i wasn't the peson who asked about kidnappers)

But what about alcohol? That's a legal substance yet it causes a vast amount of damage worldwide too, would you donate to someone dependant on alcohol?

And how far would you class drug effects?

Take this example on drugs
So if someone who had saved your life and saved countless others, and generally was a really nice person and they were about to die, you were the only person near enough with matching DNA would you donate blood? What if they used to take acid or cannibis would the situation change if so why?

Regarding the soldier idea.
So a soldier who is armed with a rifle charged with extermination of a certain ethnic group of people and he does so willingly and legally according to his government is he not a murderer?
Or say the soldier was in a battlefield scenario, and you're of the same nationality as the soldier. You stumble blindly from the shaking of explosions of your old home and this soldier is charged to kill all opposition, he kills you. Would this too not be murder?

In those rail way ones this is what I picture happening
The one smart guy is like "come over to this track guys there is a train coming on that one"
and the 5 people are like "what? Huh?? I don't get it?"
then at the last minute you hit the switch and the smart guy is killed.
I would just yell at the other 5 to get over to the one person or yell at the one person to get over to the other 5 and hit the switch.

Or I imagine the 5 people are on the track because they want to die.

Gee, I wonder what these scenarios could possibly be a metaphor for. :rolleyes:

1. One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines. To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist. If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

2. A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

3. The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

4. An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out. The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out? If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?


So, what are your answers to the above 4 scenerios and why? Does the reason have to do with cupcakes?


Disclaimer: All thought experiments were stolen off this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4954856.stm?oldness).

Sometimes there isn't really enough

1) assuming the violinist is still a conscious person and he won't be terribly disabled when you save him, yes.

2) Yes.

3) This one is harder, I'm doubting between yes and no. But it's not much different than the second one so I'll go with yes. (I assume omission = commission)

4) Also a little bit harder but I think I will have to go with Yes again.

I'll answer according to these rules:
* Don't drag people who are not already involved in the emergency into it.
* In emergencies save as many lives as possible.

1. No, there is no obligation to help with a situation you have nothing to do with when it costs you to do so. If there would be such an obligation then the government should confiscate all money people don't absolutely need to survive and give it to charities that save lives.

2. Yes, the 1 person is on the dangerous tracks just like the 5 persons and 5 > 1.

3. No, the fat man is not on the tracks so you should not push him into a situation he had nothing to do with.

4. Yes, blast this fat man, as he was also in the cave he is a player in the "save as many as possible"-game.

Being a criminal means you have little rights. If you don't respect the rights of others why should you have those rights yourself?

Well, on a purely selfish level, if rights don't apply to absolutely everyone then you've got a much weaker case as to why they should apply to you...

SPOILER! The first one is supposed to be like pregnancy/abortion

I know but it fails. A fetus isn't a person and it never was. (you could make it better by saying you accidentally walked into the wrong hospital room for your operation and the nurses thought you were the volunteer, you wake up and instead of a sex changer you're hooked up to someone with brain damage. Only if you wait 9 months he will regain his mental capabilities or something similar.)

1. One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines. To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist. If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

2. A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

3. The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

4. An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out. The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out? If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?


So, what are your answers to the above 4 scenerios and why? Does the reason have to do with cupcakes?



1: I would stay, although there would be no obligation. Because you are not there of your own free willl, it a decision to be taken by your morals.

2: I would flip the switch. None of the 6 people want to be there, and its an easy way to save four lives overall.

3: I wouldn't do this, although there is very little difference to the 2nd one. Doing that would be murder. I would however tell the fat man quickly that he can save them and alow him to make the decision. It's his body to throw- if I pushed him there would not be time

4: A tricky one. I would probably ask the rest of my companions. If they feel ready to sacrifice their companion, then it should be voted on. If not, we should take the hit.


DISCLAMER: I posted before reading the thread to stop my ideas being changed by peer pressure. If some of my arguments have already been said, sorry.

1. No
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes and Yes

1) Yes. That's a Kind Act.

2) Yes (Common Good Principle)

3) Yes (See Above)

4) Yes and Yes.

I agree.

Yes, yes, yes and yes.


And I really don't think it's makes sense for people to say yes to 2 and no to 3. They are EXACTLY the same, people are just being squeamish.

I know but it fails. A fetus isn't a person and it never was.

That's a matter of opinion.

You clearly don't believe a foetus is a person but some people do.

I agree.

Yes, yes, yes and yes.


And I really don't think it's makes sense for people to say yes to 2 and no to 3. They are EXACTLY the same, people are just being squeamish.

They are not EXACTLY the same. in 3 if someone else acts (the fat guy) he can save the 5 people. In 2 you are the only one who can save the 5 people.

I agree.

Yes, yes, yes and yes.


And I really don't think it's makes sense for people to say yes to 2 and no to 3. They are EXACTLY the same, people are just being squeamish.

not quite.
one asks you to consider flicking a switch to save more people.

The other asks you to kill another person to save more, which i find i could not do, especially as you're pushing the guy without his knowledge. quite a difference for me, but it's debatable if you know what you're doing.

not quite.
one asks you to consider flicking a switch to save more people.

The other asks you to kill another person to save more, which i find i could not do, especially as you're pushing the guy without his knowledge. quite a difference for me, but it's debatable if you know what you're doing.

In number two you're also killing a person to save more, without their knowledge.

In number two you're also killing a person to save more, without their knowledge.

And by number two I mean the flick-switch question which was originally #2 but appears first in your post.

In number two you're also killing a person to save more, without their knowledge.

true, but there's a difference between killing and murdering.
As you don't really have much of a choice in your options why not save the greater number of people at the flick of a switch?

With the other option it forces you to physically take another persons life and throw it away, and murder them in a much more direct and possibly ruthless manner.

They can appear similar but there are very distinct differences, i believe.

In number two you're also killing a person to save more, without their knowledge.
Completely off topic and threadjacking my own thread...Man your name is long and senseless. :p


Back on topic. I agree. Case 2 and 3 make no difference to me.

Completely off topic and threadjacking my own thread...Man your name is long and senseless. :p


Back on topic. I agree. Case 2 and 3 make no difference to me.

no, there is a greater intention to harm others in case 3 although the consequences are the same the intention of the action is abhorrant to me.


in case 2, you can either allow 5 or one person to die so with this option you're not actually going "okay there's someone who will die if i flick this lever, so i'll leave it and allow a further 5 to die" doesn't make any sense to me.

One morning you wake to find a famous violinist strapped to your liver because his liver has failed and you are the only person whose liver will work. Does his right to life supersede your right to not have a violinist strapped to your liver?

You are living in a very small house. There is a rapidly growing baby in your house that will soon crush you and destroy the house. Does the baby's right to life supersede your right to not be crushed and have your house blown up by a rapidly growing baby?

You are deathly ill, and Henry Fonda's cooling, restorative hand, if placed on your forehead, will instantly cure you and save your life. Do you have the right to make Henry Fonda place his hand on your forehead?

You are living in a neighborhood that has PEOPLESEED in the air. You try your hardest keep this peopleseed out of your house, but one gets in. Are you morally obligated to care for the peopleseed?

I'm going to move my house into an active volcano with a gas mask that fails 20% of the time to protect myself against the toxic gases and hope my sprinkler system takes care of any unexpected eruptions while I play in traffic and have butt sex with a condom on my foot to spy on the soviets. I really hope nothing bad happens.


Reductio ad absurdum is rarely, if ever, a good argument strategy.

no, there is a greater intention to harm others in case 3 although the consequences are the same the intention of the action is abhorrant to me.


in case 2, you can either allow 5 or one person to die so with this option you're not actually going "okay there's someone who will die if i flick this lever, so i'll leave it and allow a further 5 to die" doesn't make any sense to me.
But that's the same with case two. In both cases, the thoughts going through my mind would be 1 life or 5? In case 2, I would weigh the my choice whether I would do nothing and let 5 people die, or do something and kill 1 innocent bystander. The same is with case 3, I could do nothing and let 5 people die, or do something and kill 1 innocent bystander. The two are essentially the same to me.

But that's the same with case two. In both cases, the thoughts going through my mind would be 1 life or 5? In case 2, I would weigh the my choice whether I would do nothing and let 5 people die, or do something and kill 1 innocent bystander. The same is with case 3, I could do nothing and let 5 people die, or do something and kill 1 innocent bystander. The two are essentially the same to me.

No only the consequences are the same.

The intention behind case 2 cannot be equalled to the intention behind case 3.

Although yes you're thinking about how many people can be saved, you don't have to consider directly murdering the person in case 2, although you are killing them it's purely because of lack of options.

With case 3, you've got a direct decision to physically kill another person to save others.
Yes it's true you are making the decision in both, but in case 2 it's understandable, in case 3 much less so, there is a difference between flipping a switch and pushing another person to thieir death. Case 3 would seem more like murder to me, case 2 i think is a more justified reason to allow someone to die.

Also in case 3 you're taking things into your own hands, and making decisions for other people, in Case 2 you would not really want the person to die but have to allow them to die whereas case 3 you're forcing the decision on another person.

1. One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines. To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist. If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

2. A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

3. The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

4. An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out. The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out? If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?


So, what are your answers to the above 4 scenerios and why? Does the reason have to do with cupcakes?


Disclaimer: All thought experiments were stolen off this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4954856.stm?oldness).

1: No
2: Yes
3: No
4: I'll probably blast him. Then again, it's a bit stupid to let the fat person out first from a small hole.

Case one: I have no obligation, but I would remain hooked up, if for nothing more than the experience of having spent time with a world renowned violinist, free health care, free food and no need to do anything for months. Also, I would generally feel quite good about myself for having done so.

Case two: I'd switch the track and not have second thoughts.

Case three: I'd nudge him over, but likely would have significant mental qualms after the fact.

Case four: Duck and cover, her comes the blubber! If there's a girl, maybe convince her to give him a...special send-off...

1: Only if I was somehow responsible for his condition.

2: Throw a large stone on to the switchable track section and pull the switch, thereby derailing the trolley and saving everyone.

3: Do nothing, because if the guy is fat enough to stop a trolley that would otherwise barrel through five people he is far too heavy for me to push.

4: Use the dynamite to blast as big a hole in the ceiling as possible. As the water rises, the pressure should hopefully push the fat guy through the hole while the rest of us float upwards and breathe the air pocket created by the dynamite.
You're not really answering the questions. (but i applaud your imaginative ways of getting around them)
I'm sure everyone would rather not have to be forced to make such daft (as in difficult) decisions, but if they were true (as in the descriptions didn't allow room for you to choose a different answer) what would you choose?

1. One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines. To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist. If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

2. A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

3. The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

4. An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out. The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out? If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?


So, what are your answers to the above 4 scenerios and why? Does the reason have to do with cupcakes?


Disclaimer: All thought experiments were stolen off this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4954856.stm?oldness).

1: Only if I was somehow responsible for his condition.

2: Throw a large stone on to the switchable track section and pull the switch, thereby derailing the trolley and saving everyone.

3: Do nothing, because if the guy is fat enough to stop a trolley that would otherwise barrel through five people he is far too heavy for me to push.

4: Use the dynamite to blast as big a hole in the ceiling as possible. As the water rises, the pressure should hopefully push the fat guy through the hole while the rest of us float upwards and breathe the air pocket created by the dynamite.

1. One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines. To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist. If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?
Serious query: do you have any idea where that argument originates from?

1. No. Its your body, its being used to help someone else without your permission, and as the owner of your own body you are entitled to leave.

2. Generally, yes, if provided with no other information. However, in the unlikely event that I happen to know that this one individual makes a greater contribution to society than the five put together, no.

3. Same as 2.

4. Same as 2 + 3
(but I wouldn't support it if it were me stuck!)

You're not really answering the questions. (but i applaud your imaginative ways of getting around them)
I'm sure everyone would rather not have to be forced to make such daft (as in difficult) decisions, but if they were true (as in the descriptions didn't allow room for you to choose a different answer) what would you choose?

Alright, fine. D:

1: Not an obligation. I might do it for the praise, though.

2: I would do nothing (I know that's not an explicit option, but it's still an option). Whether I flip the switch or not, I would be forced to live with the death of either one person or five.. and more importantly, the charges the bereaved family/families would level against me.

3: See 2.

4: If the group decided to blow up the fat guy, I'd remain quiet to absolve myself of the situation. If they didn't, I'd blow up the fat guy to save myself. If the roles were reversed, I would say it was the group's stupid idea to make me (presumably the fat person) go through the hole first, and so I shouldn't be punished for their mistake.

That's a matter of opinion.

You clearly don't believe a foetus is a person but some people do. But some people say they wouldn't save him even though he is a fully developed human. So if you say abortion is wrong, but you answer 'no, I won't spend 9 months hooked up to a life-saving machine' then that's a contridiction. If you suport abortion and answered 'yes' that is not necessarily a contridiction.

But that's the same with case two. In both cases, the thoughts going through my mind would be 1 life or 5? In case 2, I would weigh the my choice whether I would do nothing and let 5 people die, or do something and kill 1 innocent bystander. The same is with case 3, I could do nothing and let 5 people die, or do something and kill 1 innocent bystander. The two are essentially the same to me.

in case 3 it explicitly says that you intended to jump stop the thing yourself, but stopped to decide whether fatso takes the fall for you. even if we grant that it is in some sense utilitarianly the same (1 life vs 5 - which probably isn't the proper way to think about it even utilitarianly), the choice was not 5 vs 1, but me or him.

You clearly don't believe a foetus is a person but some people do.

there are no such people - or there are so few as makes no difference and they are clearly ethical monsters. certainly nobody actually believes that personhood begins at conception, and we can get anyone who claims otherwise to either change their position or embarrass themselves as they try to weasel out of the consequences of that position.

in case 3 it explicitly says that you intended to stop the thing yourself, but stopped to decide whether fatso takes the fall for you. even if we grant that it is in some sense utilitarianly the same (1 life vs 5 - which probably isn't the proper way to think about it even utilitarianly), the choice was not 5 vs 1, but me or him.

It also explicitly says that you wouldn't stop the thing yourself. It's 5 vs 1.

It also explicitly says that you wouldn't stop the thing yourself. It's 5 vs 1.

no as i've said above, the morality of your actions depend not only on the consequences but the intention of those actions, and case 3 is different from case 2.

no as i've said above, the morality of your actions depend not only on the consequences but the intention of those actions, and case 3 is different from case 2.

Are you saying the intention is to kill the fat guy because he's fat? In both cases you decide to take one life to spare others. The only difference is that case 3 is more confrontational.

It also explicitly says that you wouldn't stop the thing yourself.

true. i like the instantaneous high level math i am capable of in this thought experiment. seems useful.

there is still a difference in intentionality and a difference in directness of responsibility for the one death. related to that, there is an unfairly glossed over question epistemic sureness between the two. we can be much more certain that throwing someone off a bridge in front of a trolley will kill them than we can be about diverting the trolley towards them. the causal chain of responsibility is not equally tight for both.

These are more ethically based dilemmas, rather than thought experiments. Thought experiments usually have no real answer. Wikipedia has a great article on them. One of my favorites:


Brain in a vat Taken from Wikipedia

It is drawn from the idea, common to many science fiction stories, that a mad scientist might remove a person's brain from the body, suspend it in a vat of life-sustaining liquid, and connect its neurons by wires to a supercomputer which would provide it with electrical impulses identical to those the brain normally receives. According to such stories, the computer would then be simulating a virtual reality (including appropriate responses to the brain's own output) and the person with the "disembodied" brain would continue to have perfectly normal conscious experiences without these being related to objects or events in the real world.
Since the brain in a vat gives and receives the exact same impulses as it would if it were in a skull, and since these are its only way of interacting with its environment, then it is not possible to tell, from the perspective of that brain, whether it is in a skull or a vat. Yet in the first case most of the person's beliefs may be true (if he believes, say, that he is walking down the street, or eating ice-cream); in the latter case they are false. Since, the argument says, you cannot know whether you are a brain in a vat, then you cannot know whether most of your beliefs might be completely false. Since, in principle, it is impossible to rule out your being a brain in a vat, you cannot have good grounds for believing any of the things you believe; you certainly cannot know them.

Thought experiments usually have no real answer.

not in my experience

1. No, fuck him. A little culture is not that important that I have to lose 9 months of my life.

2. Hell yeah. Saving more people = better.

3. FUCK YEAH! Kill two birds with one stone. Remove an obese fuck from the planet and save 5 people. It's win-win.

4. Screw him. He deserves to die for being so damn fat.

I agree.

Yes, yes, yes and yes.


And I really don't think it's makes sense for people to say yes to 2 and no to 3. They are EXACTLY the same, people are just being squeamish.

Not exactly. In #2, the death of the one is the consequence of your action, but in #3 the death of the one is the action.

These are more ethically based dilemmas, rather than thought experiments. Thought experiments usually have no real answer. Wikipedia has a great article on them. One of my favorites:


Brain in a vat Taken from Wikipedia

It is drawn from the idea, common to many science fiction stories, that a mad scientist might remove a person's brain from the body, suspend it in a vat of life-sustaining liquid, and connect its neurons by wires to a supercomputer which would provide it with electrical impulses identical to those the brain normally receives. According to such stories, the computer would then be simulating a virtual reality (including appropriate responses to the brain's own output) and the person with the "disembodied" brain would continue to have perfectly normal conscious experiences without these being related to objects or events in the real world.
Since the brain in a vat gives and receives the exact same impulses as it would if it were in a skull, and since these are its only way of interacting with its environment, then it is not possible to tell, from the perspective of that brain, whether it is in a skull or a vat. Yet in the first case most of the person's beliefs may be true (if he believes, say, that he is walking down the street, or eating ice-cream); in the latter case they are false. Since, the argument says, you cannot know whether you are a brain in a vat, then you cannot know whether most of your beliefs might be completely false. Since, in principle, it is impossible to rule out your being a brain in a vat, you cannot have good grounds for believing any of the things you believe; you certainly cannot know them.

Doesn't the fact that we don't possess either the knowledge or the technology to do that proof that we can believe the things we believe?

1. Violinist

He better be a damn charming violinist, one hint of sulky artiste behaviour and it's out with the tubes. Also, he's going to suffer 9 months of me going 'who's the best person in the entire world?' or similar all day so he might just pull those tubes himself sooner or later. I also want to fed with the best and I want some consoles in there - basically, if the price is right he lives, if it's wrong the sucker dies.

2. A runaway trolley car

Umm, I'm not really going to flip the switch

3. Fat man

Totally pushing the fat man - my only concern is that if he's big enough to stop a trolley, he's too big for me to push and if I don't try with enough subtlety, I'm the one thrown off the cliff - tricky one.

4.Big Jack

So let me get this straight, I have an opportunity to stick dynamite up Big Jack's's ass to see what happens? Hold on, I'm just going to get my camera.

1. I'm not obligated. It would be the kind thing to do. But wait .. they kidnapped me? I dunno. Depends on how pissed off I am. I'm pretty sure I would do it though. And they should compensate me very well for those 9 months having to lay up to save some person I don't even know, after having been kidnapped!

2. No. I'm wondering why the multiple persons were on the track and not getting out of the way. Were they playing chicken or something? I don't think it would be right to change the trolly course and kill the dude who wasn't in any danger by his own actions.. having no idea what hit him.

3. No I shouldn't push him. If I'm so desperate to save them, then I'd leap myself and give it a whirl. I wouldn't force some other person to do what I thought needed to be done. I seriously doubt I'd decide to leap in front of the car in the first place .. so no way I'd think of forcing someone else to give their life for the sake of my conscience. (Below .. and a bit later I found a reason I might would push him, but it's not to do with my conscience)

4. Hahaha I probably would use the dynamite if there was absolutely no way we'd survive once the tide came in and was certain help wasn't on the way and there was no way of contacting anyone. And if it was me stuck in the hole... well I wouldn't be happy about it, but would hopefully understand and make peace with it real quick.

EDIT: -----------------------------

For me to really come up with what I think I'd do in these situations would take me a good while pondering them. But! I've already had a change in mind about #2 and #3.

At first I thought knocking off the guy in 3 would be worse than knocking off the guy in 2. Not just because I would be physically pushing 3, but because I could jump myself... even if I thought it might not save the people.

But now I feel that killing the guy in 2 would be worse. Big reason is because I wouldn't be able to talk to him.

With #3 .. say me and him have the time to discuss ways to save the ppl below .. and of course it came down to one or both of us having to jump (sigh). If I made clear my willingness to jump, but he in no way would jump with me, or jump himself or try to talk me out of it .. (like he's thinking if he's not willing to jump, then he shouldn't let me jump either) .. even when he knows just myself jumping wouldn't save them ... and he put forth an attitude of I don't care if they die .. I don't care if you die .. I don't even care if you die and they all STILL die! I might would consider knocking him off. lol

Also ... the no one would ever know statement at the end of 3 .. that's interesting.

The in general of people knowing or not knowing about what had happened, wouldn't bother me. If I was ashamed of it .. I wouldn't do it (no I'm not saying I've never done anything I'm ashamed of.. but something of this scale that could very well haunt my mind and spirit til the day I'd die -- I'd have to feel it the right thing to do). I wouldn't really give a flip what other people thought. But -- if I thought I might very well go to prison ... I don't think I'd push him, even if I considered it justifiable. That has me thinking hehe.

I'm not sure if a murder rap was part of the point in "No one would ever know" statement. Actually I don't think it was. I think that line was to let you know you're allowed to have this dirty little secret, in case you'd feel it wrong no matter or in case you're the type that would only do this, if you knew no one would ever know what you did... even if you thought his death was justifiable to save the other people.

Not exactly. In #2, the death of the one is the consequence of your action, but in #3 the death of the one is the action.



You can choose:

In 2 the consequence of flicking a switch is the death of one and avoiding the death of five

In 3 the consequence of pushing a man is the death of one and avoiding the death of five

or

In 2 you kill one to avoid the death of five

In 3 you kill one to avoid the death of five

But you can't have one and then the other without justifying why triggering a mechanism (much the same as shooting a gun) makes you more removed than carrying out the same action physically.

1. One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines. To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist. If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

2. A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

3. The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

4. An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out. The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out? If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?


So, what are your answers to the above 4 scenerios and why? Does the reason have to do with cupcakes?


Disclaimer: All thought experiments were stolen off this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4954856.stm?oldness).



1. Duh. Of course.
2. Alternative method (yes, and then scream at the man to get off the tracks)
3. Alternative Method (I'd ask him to jump. If not enough time, I'd push and tell him that its to save 5 people)
4. If it kills him, won't it kill me? How much room are we talking about here (yes)

You can choose:

In 2 the consequence of flicking a switch is the death of one and avoiding the death of five

In 3 the consequence of pushing a man is the death of one and avoiding the death of five

or

In 2 you kill one to avoid the death of five

In 3 you kill one to avoid the death of five

But you can't have one and then the other without justifying why triggering a mechanism (much the same as shooting a gun) makes you more removed than carrying out the same action physically.

You're oversimplifying them and missing the point that in #2, the death of the one man is a side-effect of saving the five people, and that in #3 the death is the very thing that saves them. Do you honestly not see the difference?

You're oversimplifying them and missing the point that in #2, the death of the one man is a side-effect of saving the five people, and that in #3 the death is the very thing that saves them. Do you honestly not see the difference?

I think you're being confused by the existence of the five people in the #2. Taking them out of the equation, flicking the switch would be an unforgivable act of murder.

In both cases you kill an innocent man who would otherwise survive to save five who would die unless you intervened. In both cases the men's death saves the others.

In both cases the men's death saves the others.

This is not correct. In #2 the other man's death accomplishes nothing. It is simply the price paid to save the five. If the man was not present at the other track, that would not prohibit either the switch flipping or the five people being saved. It is simply that he is in the unfortunate time and location that mandates that by saving the other five, you kill him.

On the other hand, in #3 it is the death that accomplishes everything. No longer is the man's presence unfortunate and not required, but is the most important piece in saving the five people. Without him, nothing could happen but their deaths.

This is not correct. In #2 the other man's death accomplishes nothing. It is simply the price paid to save the five. If the man was not present at the other track, that would not prohibit either the switch flipping or the five people being saved. It is simply that he is in the unfortunate time and location that mandates that by saving the other five, you kill him.

On the other hand, in #3 it is the death that accomplishes everything. No longer is the man's presence unfortunate and not required, but is the most important piece in saving the five people. Without him, nothing could happen but their deaths.

Why does their logistical role affect the morality of killing them? You can't dispute that in both cases you are killing them and that in both cases if you do not kill them that more people will die. So why does the fact that if the man from #2 wasn't there that the car would travel harmlessly along empty track matter when he is there and is very much occupying the track?

But you can't have one and then the other without justifying why triggering a mechanism (much the same as shooting a gun) makes you more removed than carrying out the same action physically.

This is correct - the only difference is in the emotional triggers it fires up in the brain, we see pushing the man as more emotional than flicking a switch when, in fact, there's no difference at all.

Hence I won't flick the switch but I will push the fat man, mostly because he's fat.

Sue me.

Why does their logistical role affect the morality of killing them?

It's not the "morality" of killing them that's at stake so much as whether it truly qualifies as "killing" in the relevant sense.

The idea is, murder is always wrong, and cannot be justified. But if we flip the switch, we are not intentionally killing anyone; somebody happens to be there and die as a result, but that was a consequence of the way the universe happened to be at the time, not an intrinsic part of our action. On the other hand, if we push the man off, we are intentionally killing him to serve our end--and for the purposes of the moral theories that make this distinction, the fact that our end happen to be saving five people is irrelevant.

Ultimately, this kind of reasoning is too self-oriented for my tastes--it seems to be founded more on keeping one's own hands clean than on actually acting to protect people's lives--but there's a real distinction there.

It's not the "morality" of killing them that's at stake so much as whether it truly qualifies as "killing" in the relevant sense.

The idea is, murder is always wrong, and cannot be justified. But if we flip the switch, we are not intentionally killing anyone; somebody happens to be there and die as a result, but that was a consequence of the way the universe happened to be at the time, not an intrinsic part of our action. On the other hand, if we push the man off, we are intentionally killing him to serve our end--and for the purposes of the moral theories that make this distinction, the fact that our end happen to be saving five people is irrelevant.

Ultimately, this kind of reasoning is too self-oriented for my tastes--it seems to be founded more on keeping one's own hands clean than on actually acting to protect people's lives--but there's a real distinction there.

No there isn't - you're intentionally killing both ways, the only difference is in the means, whether you're pushing or flicking a switch.

The only difference is the removal of the personal aspect, and this is all in the mind to be honest.

Both ways you intentionally act to kill the single man. There's no escaping that.

It's not the "morality" of killing them that's at stake so much as whether it truly qualifies as "killing" in the relevant sense.

The idea is, murder is always wrong, and cannot be justified. But if we flip the switch, we are not intentionally killing anyone; somebody happens to be there and die as a result, but that was a consequence of the way the universe happened to be at the time, not an intrinsic part of our action. On the other hand, if we push the man off, we are intentionally killing him to serve our end--and for the purposes of the moral theories that make this distinction, the fact that our end happen to be saving five people is irrelevant.

Ultimately, this kind of reasoning is too self-oriented for my tastes--it seems to be founded more on keeping one's own hands clean than on actually acting to protect people's lives--but there's a real distinction there.

I think the bolded part is an artificial distinction. You can just as easily argue that the circumstances in #3 are a consequence of the way the universe happened to be at the time; as in #2, circumstances were such that you could either save one man and let five die (by not pushing the fat man), or save five men and let one die (by pushing the fat man). As Barringtonia says, the mechanism by which you make the decision is different, but "the way the universe happened to be" is identical in every other respect.

It's not the "morality" of killing them that's at stake so much as whether it truly qualifies as "killing" in the relevant sense.

The idea is, murder is always wrong, and cannot be justified. But if we flip the switch, we are not intentionally killing anyone; somebody happens to be there and die as a result, but that was a consequence of the way the universe happened to be at the time, not an intrinsic part of our action. On the other hand, if we push the man off, we are intentionally killing him to serve our end--and for the purposes of the moral theories that make this distinction, the fact that our end happen to be saving five people is irrelevant.

Ultimately, this kind of reasoning is too self-oriented for my tastes--it seems to be founded more on keeping one's own hands clean than on actually acting to protect people's lives--but there's a real distinction there.

But you are aware the guy is there, right? Going back to the flick the switch/ shoot a gun comparison, what is the distinction between your flicking a switch and its simply a "consequence of the way the universe happened to be at the time" and your shooting a gun and the bullet striking someone who similarily just happens to be there.

Your action isn't simply "divert car" unless you have no idea there's another guy there. With that knowledge, any decision to divert the car is diverting it into his path to knowingly kill him.

-snip-
Wow, your experiments really, really suck.

I only read the first post, and I predict that this thread is either about utilitarianism or abortion.

I only read the first post, and I predict that this thread is either about utilitarianism or abortion.

...as usual, you're in the wrong - it may have been the original intent behind the questions themselves, though I don't think Ladame put them out that way herself but the thread has gone into the distinction between pushing and pulling a man or a lever, with a sidebar on whether the act of kidnapping affects the duty to help.

Release the cynic genie from your soul :)

1...Do you have an obligation to stay connected?
No. Consent cannot be presumed and forced donation is theft.

2. A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?
No, the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few or the one. (Nor do the needs of the one outweight the needs of the many) It would be fine to sacrifice yourself to save others but you shouldn't take anothers life unless they're threatening you, someone else, you're at war, or they've murdered at least 100 people.

3. The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?
Yes, watching a fat man explode when he gets hit by a train would be hilarious, that it saves lives would be a fringe benefit.

4. An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out. The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out? If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?
Why wouldn't the dynamite (my favorite brand of cigar) blow up you and everyone else trapped in this small and blocked off cavern? Seems like it'd be suicide to blow him up, pull him back instead.

With regard to #4, I can assure you that if my skinny frame is getting stuck in the hole, there's no way in hell anyone else will be able to get through it. Thus, I'd advise them not to kill me since it won't do them any good anyway. :p

No there isn't - you're intentionally killing both ways, the only difference is in the means, whether you're pushing or flicking a switch.

The only difference is the removal of the personal aspect, and this is all in the mind to be honest.

Both ways you intentionally act to kill the single man. There's no escaping that.

I agree.

What you expect me to actually read stuff before I reply to it?!?

*coughs*

Ok, I missed that bit of your post. Have a complimentary cookie (http://www.zuzzys.com/images/cookies.jpg). :)

Virtual cookies are no good to me!:(

Drud addicts are people depndent upon an illegal substance. How they fund it doesn't matter.

Heh ohh you mean like acohol, pain killers and sleeping pills?

That's a matter of opinion.

You clearly don't believe a foetus is a person but some people do.

Heh then them people would be wrong.

I only read the first post, and I predict that this thread is either about utilitarianism or abortion.

Umm or morality and ethics?

4. An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out. The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out? If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?
We were given this in an ethics class I took several years ago. My answer then, as it is now, was that if you're that dumb to wander into an obviously unsafe, never-been-explored-by-you-before, cave that is below the tide mark and then compound your stupidity by letting the fattest man in your group attempt to get through the hole first, the entire lot of you deserve to die.
dumbasses.

1. One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines. To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist. If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

Yes, I would stay connected. After all, it is not like the maestro orchestrated the whole thing in the beginning, so disconnecting myself would take his life without any purpose at all except emotional revenge.

But I am going to ask for a lot of reparations after he gets his life saved. Including brithday concerts every year and getting that maestro to play the entire Tchaikovsky concerto with the Wiener Symphoniker at my wedding.

2. A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

Yeah, of course. Poor fellow. Without time to judge about quality, I'd had to go with quantity, and in this case, 5 against 1 is not to discuss.

3. The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

Same as above. without time to judge quality, quantity is the issue. I am going to feel guilty anyway, so feeling guilty about one person is better than feeling guilty for five.

4. An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out. The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out? If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?

First, I would kick the hell out of Big Jack until the water reach a certain level, to see if I can push him out. When the moment of no return arrives, I would blow him off. However, I would stay with him and blow myself alongside him for being so stupid and sending the fat motherfucker first.

If the roles are reversed, I am so short and thin that if I get stuck in a hole, noone else is going to make it unless they are midgets, so I would tell them to pray because noone is going to make it. If I am as fat as Big Jack and stuck because they sent me first, I would mock them telling them that they will die as idiots for not going out before me, so more likely they will blow me out.

1. One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines. To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist. If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?No, but I probably would anyway.2. A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?I probably would flip the switch, though how would you be able to tell whether the people would definitely be killed?
3. The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?No.
4. An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out. The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out? If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?First off, I'd try to pull Jack back. Then we'd escape and let Big Jack crawl through the hole so his head sticks out so he won't drown. Whoever had the idea to let Jack go first gets bitchslapped.

You clearly don't believe a foetus is a person but some people do.

Let's not derail this thread, but it's quite obvious that a fetus can't see itself as a person separate from time and space. It doesn't have a personality.
The fact that it contains human DNA is irrelevant because otherwise an amputated arm or even a fallen hair would also be a person.

1. No, fuck him. A little culture is not that important that I have to lose 9 months of my life.


It isn't about the culture, it's about the life of another person, you're saying that the whole life of another person is less important than 9 months of your own life (which don't have to be totally lost)

No there isn't - you're intentionally killing both ways, the only difference is in the means, whether you're pushing or flicking a switch.

I think the bolded part is an artificial distinction. You can just as easily argue that the circumstances in #3 are a consequence of the way the universe happened to be at the time; as in #2, circumstances were such that you could either save one man and let five die (by not pushing the fat man), or save five men and let one die (by pushing the fat man).

But you are aware the guy is there, right? Going back to the flick the switch/ shoot a gun comparison, what is the distinction between your flicking a switch and its simply a "consequence of the way the universe happened to be at the time" and your shooting a gun and the bullet striking someone who similarily just happens to be there.

Yes, of course, everything we do necessarily involves the way things happen to be at the time. That's beside the point.

My only point in that respect was that there's no intent in case #2. There's a distinction between committing an action you know will cause death somewhere down the line and committing an action that intentionally causes death as a means to your end.

Of course, you "regret" the death in both cases... but in the third case you directly cause it, you intentionally bring it about to stop the train, and in the second case you just let the train go to where it happens to hit someone. You don't act to bring about that result (even though you know it's a likely consequence); it just happens.

Had there been no one on the second track, you could have flipped the switch and saved the five people anyway... but had there been no fat man to push, you couldn't have stopped the train in the third case. One is a death that comes as a consequence of your action. The other is an inseparable, intentional part of your action.

Again, you may or may not buy the idea of moral responsibility at the heart of all of this--I don't--but there actually is a meaningful distinction here.

My only point in that respect was that there's no intent in case #2. There's a distinction between committing an action you know will cause death somewhere down the line and committing an action that intentionally causes death as a means to your end.

Action: Flick a switch
Result: Car crashes into man, killing him.

Action: Push a man.
Result: Man falls down onto track and the car kills him


Of course, you "regret" the death in both cases... but in the third case you directly cause it, you intentionally bring it about to stop the train, and in the second case you just let the train go to where it happens to hit someone. You don't act to bring about that result (even though you know it's a likely consequence); it just happens.


It's not a likely consequence. It's the consequence. The action and the killing are one in the same. What we have here is a distinction in the role that both men play but they are equally as dead as a result of your actions and your actions were carried out with the knowledge that they would result in those deaths. You're only "just let the train go where it happens to hit someone" if you don't know that you act of flicking the switch will kill the man.


Had there been no one on the second track, you could have flipped the switch and saved the five people anyway... but had there been no fat man to push, you couldn't have stopped the train in the third case. One is a death that comes as a consequence of your action. The other is an inseparable, intentional part of your action.


That's a question of their logistical role. That there could be a hypothetical situation whereby there is no one on the other line makes as much difference as a hypothetical situation where there's no one in the line of fire from a gun.

In both cases the car is on route to kill five people and you have the option to intervene and sacrifice one person who is perfectly safe in order to save those five lives. You can achieve the sacrificing of this persons life by a push or a flick of the switch. Surely method is the only difference?

Yeah, of course. Poor fellow. Without time to judge about quality, I'd had to go with quantity, and in this case, 5 against 1 is not to discuss.
ah, but what if those 5 were evil clones of Hitler and the 1 was a small innocent child holding a puppy dog?

Same as above. without time to judge quality, quantity is the issue. I am going to feel guilty anyway, so feeling guilty about one person is better than feeling guilty for five.
And what if the fat guy was a reincarnated John Belushi and the other five KKK members?

Action: Flick a switch
Result: Car crashes into man, killing him.

Action: Push a man.
Result: Man falls down onto track and the car kills him

Right, fine. You're thinking of it in consequentialist terms: act, consequences. So would I.

But other theorists distinguish between "intended" and "unintended" consequences, among other things, and this distinction makes sense conceptually even if in the end it is not morally relevant.

It's not a likely consequence. It's the consequence.

Not a necessary one; the end can be accomplished without it (even if it definitely will happen.) And not an intentional one.

What we have here is a distinction in the role that both men play but they are equally as dead as a result of your actions and your actions were carried out with the knowledge that they would result in those deaths.

True.

That's a question of their logistical role. That there could be a hypothetical situation whereby there is no one on the other line makes as much difference as a hypothetical situation where there's no one in the line of fire from a gun.

It makes all the difference, and your second hypothetical situation shows it perfectly.

Imagine we know, for some reason, that killing a person with a gun will save ten people's lives. The person's death at our hands is intentional; if, as in your hypothetical, there is no person there, then there is no saving. We intentionally kill her to save the others.

On the other hand, we can and should flip the switch regardless of whether or not there is a person on the other track. The person's presence is irrelevant to the reasoning behind our act.

In both cases the car is on route to kill five people and you have the option to intervene and sacrifice one person who is perfectly safe in order to save those five lives.

In the second case, you act to save five people. One person happens to die as a consequence.

In the third case, you sacrifice someone to save five people. You can't say that someone happens to die as a consequence because you intentionally killed him in the process of the saving. It's not a "consequence" in the relevant sense; it's an intrinsic, intended part of the act.

My answers, for what it's worth, are "yes" to all four. Despite the position I am presently defending. :)

Action: Flick a switch
Result: Car crashes into man, killing him.

Action: Push a man.
Result: Man falls down onto track and the car kills him



It's not a likely consequence. It's the consequence. The action and the killing are one in the same. What we have here is a distinction in the role that both men play but they are equally as dead as a result of your actions and your actions were carried out with the knowledge that they would result in those deaths. You're only "just let the train go where it happens to hit someone" if you don't know that you act of flicking the switch will kill the man.



That's a question of their logistical role. That there could be a hypothetical situation whereby there is no one on the other line makes as much difference as a hypothetical situation where there's no one in the line of fire from a gun.

In both cases the car is on route to kill five people and you have the option to intervene and sacrifice one person who is perfectly safe in order to save those five lives. You can achieve the sacrificing of this persons life by a push or a flick of the switch. Surely method is the only difference?

But what if the train misses the man you pushed? Or what if you don't push him the right way and he lands beside the track? He's a fat man so he's got lots of padding to cushion his fall. So this case is also just a likely consequence, not the consequence.

-snip-
First off, I'd try to pull Jack back. Then we'd escape and let Big Jack crawl through the hole so his head sticks out so he won't drown. Whoever had the idea to let Jack go first gets bitchslapped.

Great idea! :)

On the other hand, we can and should flip the switch regardless of whether or not there is a person on the other track. The person's presence is irrelevant to the reasoning behind our act.


The presence is relevant. Imagine there were six people on the other line, no one could possibly advocate killing six over five. Thus, we flick the switch not because it stops five people from dying (and one person dies as a consequence or complication) but because one person dying is less worse than five people dying.

But what if the train misses the man you pushed? Or what if you don't push him the right way and he lands beside the track? He's a fat man so he's got lots of padding to cushion his fall. So this case is also just a likely consequence, not the consequence.

What was the intention? You were willing to kill him. You didn't know he wouldn't die. You thought he would die.

The presence is relevant. Imagine there were six people on the other line, no one could possibly advocate killing six over five.

Right; it's relevant to our utilitarian calculation. But it's not relevant to achieving our end.

What was the intention? No matter what happens to him.. you were willing to kill him. You didn't know he wouldn't die. You thoght he would die.
Yes, what I'm trying to say is that it is the same as the other question where you flip a switch, because someone was trying to say it was different.

Yes, what I'm trying to say is that it is the same as the other question where you flip a switch, because someone was trying to say it was different.

Oh ;)